Tuesday, May 15, 2018

Mariners second baseman Robinson Cano was suspended for 80 games on Tuesday following a positive test for a performance-enhancing drug, according to multiple reports, including Ken Rosenthal of The Athletic

From what I’ve read Hector Gomez, a reporter in the Dominican, is the one who broke the story.

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

I'm going to try to hi-jack this thread again because I'm still so blow away by Dan's post #163. He's given us good evidence that steroids don't do anything for baseball players.

That means, among other things, that if you're one of the people who thinks that players' performance should be adjusted to reflect what they would have done without the juice (for HOF discussions, for example) then you don't need to do any adjustment at all. It means that whatever was crazy about the 1990s, it wasn't steroids. It means that there's no reason for players to use them, and no reason (aside from letting players set a bad example for kids) for the league the test for them. It's HUGE.

All of this is "on average" of course. But it's still the biggest news about PEDs in baseball in a really really long while.

That means, among other things, that if you're one of the people who thinks that players' performance should be adjusted to reflect what they would have done without the juice (for HOF discussions, for example) then you don't need to do any adjustment at all. It means that whatever was crazy about the 1990s, it wasn't steroids. It means that there's no reason for players to use them, and no reason (aside from letting players set a bad example for kids) for the league the test for them.

It means none of those things. As you acknowledge, it's on average, which in no way rules out the possibility that some players benefit more than others from steroids, and that those players were the ones putting up the crazy numbers.

That means, among other things, that if you're one of the people who thinks that players' performance should be adjusted to reflect what they would have done without the juice (for HOF discussions, for example) then you don't need to do any adjustment at all. It means that whatever was crazy about the 1990s, it wasn't steroids. It means that there's no reason for players to use them, and no reason (aside from letting players set a bad example for kids) for the league the test for them. It's HUGE.

I don't know how much steroids help players, but I find it completely unbelievable that it provides no advantage. I'd be significantly more inclined to think the entire league is using (one of Dan's other hypothesis consistent with his data. This is half in jest--while I don't actually think every player is juicing, I think the prevalence is far higher than most people seem to, and could be as much as 25-50% of players).

Offensive linemen in the NFL weigh 310-320 lbs. now, where 50 years ago they weighed 230-240.

And today, knowing what we know, and having access to PEDs, they'd be that size.

It used to be linemen played at 240 lbs, retired and ballooned to 280. Now they play at 320, retire, and shrink to 280. Their size is intentional, and engineered.

Yours has 4 of the top 9 hitters of all time debuting between 1905-1915 (plus Wagner in 1897)...and none in the last 60 years (Aaron was the latest in 1954). Since talent distribution is random, I guess that's possible, but it just doesn't seem like the most likely explanation to me.

Well the entire 20th-21st century (with 4-7 billion people) hasn't produced as much musical talent as 18th century Germany, or as much artistic talent as 15-16th century Italy.

As you acknowledge, it's on average, which in no way rules out the possibility that some players benefit more than others from steroids, and that those players were the ones putting up the crazy numbers.

I don't know how much steroids help players, but I find it completely unbelievable that it provides no advantage. I'd be significantly more inclined to think the entire league is using (one of Dan's other hypothesis consistent with his data.

If it's the case that steroids only help SOME players, then it naturally follows that steroids don't help other players. If steroids are the unique advantage here, then we should see some sort of bump in the overall result, ESPECIALLY if as much as a quarter of the league is on something. Since we don't any sort of general correlation, then the unique factor here most likely isn't steroids.

Well the entire 20th-21st century (with 4-7 billion people) hasn't produced as much musical talent as 18th century Germany, or as much artistic talent as 15-16th century Italy.

People who are better at math feel free to correct me, but if the population of steroid users as a whole hits its projections, then if some users are helped by steroids others would have to be hurt by them. If you don't think that's likely, then you shouldn't think that it's likely that steroids help baseball players.

Or, as noted, you could think that everyone is using. Thinking that 25-50% of players are using won't do it though. If that was the case then Dan would have found some amount by which those who are caught beat their projections (albeit not by as much as if no one was using).

People who are better at math feel free to correct me, but if the population of steroid users as a whole hits its projections, then if some users are helped by steroids others would have to be hurt by them. If you don't think that's likely, then you shouldn't think that it's likely that steroids help baseball players.

Not necessarily (I don't think). If the players getting caught gain some benefit, but on average, less than other users that were not caught, the ones caught could still hit their average projections at the same rate as the average player for the league (because the "average" player is gaining some benefit from steroids).

Or, as noted, you could think that everyone is using. Thinking that 25-50% of players are using won't do it though. If that was the case then Dan would have found some amount by which those who are caught beat their projections (albeit not by as much as if no one was using).

My best guess is that Dan hasn't been able to sufficiently tease out the data from the noise, possibly in part because players use for much longer than we normally think (like, their whole career), and many more players use than we think. There could be many other reasons why the signal is not coming through, like the one I mentioned above. It might just be that it's very hard to tease out the signal from the noise for a variety of other reasons. It is interesting though... if steroids had a huge effect on performance there would probably be some remnant in studies like Dan's, imperfect as they might be.

Not necessarily (I don't think). If the players getting caught gain some benefit, but on average, less than other users that were not caught, the ones caught could still hit their average projections at the same rate as the average player for the league (because the "average" player is gaining some benefit from steroids).

Okay, you're right. That's possible. But it requires that the players who are caught are using less effective steroids than those who aren't caught. Indeed, those who aren't caught would have to use really good stuff to pull up the whole population's average (which includes clean players). All that could happen, but it doesn't sound any more likely than steroids hurting some players and not others (which is to say, not very likely).

Okay, you're right. That's possible. But it requires that the players who are caught are using less effective steroids than those who aren't caught. Indeed, those who aren't caught would have to use really good stuff to pull up the whole population's average (which includes clean players). All that could happen, but it doesn't sound any more likely than steroids hurting some players and not others (which is to say, not very likely).

I don't know why the steroid signal is not coming through, though undoubtedly steroids HAVE hurt some players (though I would certainly not think enough to bring the average down to nothing).

There are other possibilities, like the players that have been more helped by steroids are less likely to get caught, maybe because they are more the stars of the team (in part because of the steroid efficacy for them) so the failed tests are being swept under the rug. It's happened in other sports, so presumably it could happen in baseball too.

I really don't know the reason, the above are just some guesses. I think there must be a reason though, because it seems exceedingly unlikely that steroids produce no benefit on average.

This guy I know INSISTS that The Big Red Machine was the first PED clubhouse and that Joe Morgan, George Foster, and Pete Rose all were users. I am flabbergasted at the way people are able to speculate wildly about these things without any evidence other than some statistics.

I, for one, am totally willing to believe any negative thing that I hear about Pete Rose. He hangs toilet paper the wrong way? Of course. He masterminded 9/11? Sure, why not. He killed Gandhi and framed Nathuram Godse? You betcha.

Baseball, like boxing, had a traditional wisdom that weight training reduced flexibility and explosive power. Steroids didn’t become accepted in boxing until the late-80s - not to say there weren’t single data points to the contrary from earlier, I’m not aware of any but it’s certainly possible - but it wouldn’t surprise me if it proliferation in baseball followed the same pattern of acceptance.

Of course there’s the whole issue with the fact The we don’t know exactly what each juicing player was taking, and how they were taking it. “Steroids” is shorthand for hundreds of compounds and formulations.

In that link above, Tom House says 6 or 7 pitchers on every team were using steroids, including himself. He also happens to be the man who caught Hank Aaron's record breaking home run ball and the man Nolan Ryan thanked in his HOF speech for being on the cutting edge of training and was responsible for revitalizing his career.

Now that you are aware of this, do you still think steroids came into baseball in the 1980s?

In that link above, Tom House says 6 or 7 pitchers on every team were using steroids, including himself. He also happens to be the man who caught Hank Aaron's record breaking home run ball and the man Nolan Ryan thanked in his HOF speech for being on the cutting edge of training and was responsible for revitalizing his career.

I'm sure there were some very early dabblers in the juicing arts (but as YR notes, the idea questioning the usefulness of strength training in baseball lasted a long long time). And it's dangerous to hang all of your conclusions on the questionable veracity of Tom House.

Just because something is possible or even plausible, doesn't mean that it's true. I am currently at the point where it would not surprise me to find that any current player is using steroids. What WOULD surprise me is if 3 or more high profile players from the same team (and not just any team, one of the most famous teams in baseball history) were all able to hide their steroid use from the public for 40+ years. That Pete was consorting with steroid dealers definitely qualifies as a question mark against HIM, but I don't really see any benefit to ascribing that treatment to George Foster, Cesar Geronimo, Rawly Eastwick, or Joe Morgan (whose late peak is probably the one that triggers the anti-roid evangelist witch hunters the most).

Late to the party on this, but Dan's comment is pretty solid evidence that you could pretty much build a steroid narrative about any player using their stat lines.

If a fringe players' stats are not fantastic and they get caught using, it's "well, he had to use to make it to the big leagues."

If a player has an incredible season that is preceded and succeeded by average seasons (aka Brady Anderson or Foster) "well, he obviously started using roids, and then stopped."

If a player has a somewhat late peak a la Justin Turner or Joe Morgan, "they obviously started using roids because late peaks are extremely rare."

There are many, many other examples of steroid tropes; but it is pretty amazing that there is no one (no one) that is close to Bonds. I don't know what that says, but I'm inclined to believe he was just the best of all time.

There are many, many other examples of steroid tropes; but it is pretty amazing that there is no one (no one) that is close to Bonds. I don't know what that says, but I'm inclined to believe he was just the best of all time.

I kind of figure that Bonds approached PEDs the way he approached hitting, by being smarter than everyone else. Rather than just start a regimen and hope for the best, he did something more targeted, and tailored changes to his game that maximized the physiological changes. As with the case with hitting, he was just better and more disciplined at roids than his peers.

kind of figure that Bonds approached PEDs the way he approached hitting, by being smarter than everyone else. Rather than just start a regimen and hope for the best, he did something more targeted, and tailored changes to his game that maximized the physiological changes. As with the case with hitting, he was just better and more disciplined at roids than his peers.

Could be. Probably. Who knows? I don't think steroids make Barry Bonds' accomplishments any less astounding. I'm not happy that baseball players are using drugs and I would like to see better testing. I don't think that creating narratives about player performance, no matter how plausible the narratives may be, is a productive way to get to the bottom of the steroid problem.

Just to be technical, note that I'm not saying my work proves steroids don't do anything in baseball, only all my attempts to find a connection to performance have led me to fail to reject the null hypothesis of no effect.

There are all sorts of whys and whatfours in the stats of PED-caught players, differing in usage and time-frame. But if the effect is anywhere near as large as some claim, there has to be some evidence in the data *somewhere*. There are lots of other things that have similar "not everyone is the same" factors, such as fastball velocity and the Coors hangover and the predictive nature of generalized injuries on performance. Everyone's shoulder injury is different, but I'm able to find, via discriminant analysis and other tools, a certain predictive value in simply knowing a hitter was disabled for at least a month with a "shoulder" injury. Pitcher repertoire's differ, but a delta in fastball velocity also passes this muster.

Through every approach I tried -- and I've tried a lot because finding something with real predictive value that is currently an unknown effect has significant value to me, job-wise -- I haven't found anything even borderline significant. If steroids can turn 20-homer hitters into 30-homer or 40-homer hitters, that effect is so large that it can't not be found; we find certain evidence of much, much smaller effects than that.

I like that we have testing in baseball that was agreed to by the MLBPA. But I see it as a safety issue first. Players can feel forced to use a drug even if it is a placebo effect.

What do you have against the Romantic era composers? No love for Chopin, Tchaikovsky, Liszt, Schumann or Grieg? Also 20th century composers Cole Porter, John Coltrane, Charlie Parker, Rodgers/Hammerstein, Stephen Sondheim? And that doesn't even get into Hendrix. :)

What do you have against the Romantic era composers? No love for Chopin, Tchaikovsky, Liszt, Schumann or Grieg? Also 20th century composers Cole Porter, John Coltrane, Charlie Parker, Rodgers/Hammerstein, Stephen Sondheim? And that doesn't even get into Hendrix. :)

Bach had one of the finest senses of melody and majesty of any human to ever walk the planet. So does McCartney. Context means that the type of music they produced is different, and you're not required to prefer one over the other, but to say that the modern era contains no objective musical talent is just hilariously wrong.

I personally don't especially love the sort of music that Max Martin produces, but he's clearly, objectively a musical genius. In a different era, when tastes pushed in a different direction, he'd have written music that you'd be drooling over.

Why are you limiting "musicians" to classical composers? There's a lot more styles of popular music nowadays. Transcendent talent is dispersed between them. Can 18th century Germany compare to the 20th century in rock, rap, jazz, pop, country, hip hop, etc?

Look, I DO believe in golden eras. For example, a six year span from 1951-1956 saw the debuts of 90+ WAR players Mantle, Mays, Mathews, Aaron, Kaline, Clemente, and Frank Robinson. Plus Williams and Musial were still going strong too. But I have a much easier time believing that a more modern and integrated era might have a disproportionate amount of all time talent than an era in the early development stages of the sport where a large percentage of the best players were being excluded and the scouting system and minor leagues were a shadow of what they'd later become, so there was less means to make sure even the best white talent was being funneled into the major leagues.

Saying that 1910's MLB had the best top end talent in their sports history would be like saying the same about the 1920's NFL or the 1950's NBA. No one would believe that for a second.

an incredible season that is preceded and succeeded by average seasons (aka Brady Anderson or Foster)

This does not apply to Foster. In his 52 homer season (1977, his age 28 year), his OPS+ was 165. For the 7 years 1975-81, his OPS+ was 149. He was definitely a late bloomer, as 1975 (age 26) was only the 2nd time he had enough PA to qualify for the rate stat leaderboards, but his 1977 was simply the best year of a good peak, not a total anomaly.

I had thought Rose's friendship with a steroid dealer came late in his career, when he was player-manager of the Reds, and not during the BRM days of the early to mid 70s. Was I wrong to think that?

Saying that 1910's MLB had the best top end talent in their sports history would be like saying the same about the 1920's NFL or the 1950's NBA. No one would believe that for a second.

1920s boxing had more elite talent than 2010 boxing. An IBRO member did some research and found out that there were more professional boxing licenses issued in 1928 NYC than for the entire United States for any year in the 2000s.

1920s boxing had more elite talent than 2010 boxing. An IBRO member did some research and found out that there were more professional boxing licenses issued in 1928 NYC than for entire United States for any year in the 2000s.

I don't doubt it, but that's not analogous to baseball, or specifically, 1910's MLB. Even counting only North Americans, in addition to MLB, you had a robust free minors plus the negro leagues. Even if you accept that professional baseball talent peaked in the 1910s, and I don't, that still doesn't mean the white North Americans playing in MLB were the best ever.

I’m just noting that you can’t automatically assume athletes of previous generations were inherently inferior to modern athletes, especially if you’re willing to accept the confounding role of PEDs in burnishing the raw athletic performances of the current stars. A singular talent can emerge at any time in a sports evolution. Rules changes and PEDs are, IMO, a much larger contributor to differences in elite modern and historic athletic performance than anything else.

Do you think there are as many people playing baseball in America now as there were in the 1920s? I’m no expert on the topic but it seems to me there were a lot more minor league teams and leagues, plus semi-pro circuits.

Do you think there are as many people playing baseball in America now as there were in the 1920s? I’m no expert on the topic but it seems to me there were a lot more minor league teams and leagues, plus semi-pro circuits.

Hell no. It was Baseball, Boxing, and Horse Racing, with everything else tied for a very, very distant 2nd. Pretty sure boxing's fallen a hell of a lot farther than baseball, though.

Well much in the same way baseball has compensated for the loss of American interest with Hispanic players, boxing is benefitting from a host of Mexican and Eastern European fighters. The sport may be more popular in those countries than ever before (I don’t know).

Playing baseball at what level? The population of the US in 1920 was just shy of 95 million whites. Today it's roughly 328 million of all races, more than triple. It would be remarkable if there were fewer people "playing baseball" today. And that doesn't count the foreign countries from which many players come.

Playing baseball at what level? The population of the US in 1920 was just shy of 95 million whites. Today it's roughly 328 million of all races, more than triple. It would be remarkable if there were fewer people "playing baseball" today. And that doesn't count the foreign countries from which many players come.

And even if it were true, far from all of them were in MLB. I could easily see making a team, or several teams of non-MLB players in 1920 and competing for the pennant. Can you imagine that today?

Do you think there are as many people playing baseball in America now as there were in the 1920s?

I don't know, but why are you limiting it to America? When you consider that MLB has widened their search to Asia and Latin America, I'd guess that they're currently pulling from a much larger talent pool.

And again, a lot of people playing baseball in the 1920's weren't playing in MLB.

But, Dan, isn't the biggest problem in trying to tease out the proof, the fact that we don't know who is using and when they started? I know you ran some numbers based on players getting caught, but that's probably a very poor way to figure out the effects. I know there isn't anything better, but it seems pretty weak.

Take Cano. He got popped this past offseason, apparently. And for a masking agent. How is he quantified? Many possible answers, but he could be:

A) Not juicing at all, just using the masking agent for a legitimate purpose. Or didn't even know he was taking it.
B) Decided to start a PED regimen this year, was using the agent to mask use, but got caught.
C) Has been juicing for, say, 3 years, but screwed up the protocol once this offseason and got caught.
D) Was a middling prospect, read Dave Cameron's prospect report, starting juicing in 2004, has been on PEDs ever since, messed up and finally got caught.
E) Combination of B and D, was juicing since 2004, but was slowing down so ramped up use or changed PEDs and got caught.

I just don't see that there's any way to be confident in any numbers that can be put together. Especially because we're also trying to gauge the effect by baseball numbers. Maybe a guy starts on PEDs but just has a down year (injury, bad luck, etc.).

I know you opened this post saying that you haven't proved anything. I'm just questioning whether it's at all possible.

How so? I just meant that even if there were more Americans playing baseball in 1920, a lot of the great players were stuck in the Negro Leagues or the PCL. Whereas now, all the best baseball playing Americans are actually in MLB, plus many of the best players from other countries.

They are relevant points to the issue of whether the white North American players of the 1910's, who dominated MLB like few others did in history, were the greatest of the great in the history of the game.

How so? I just meant that even if there were more Americans playing baseball in 1920, a lot of the great players were stuck in the Negro Leagues or the PCL. Whereas now, all the best baseball playing Americans are actually in MLB, plus many of the best players from other countries.

You don’t know if you’re getting the best Americans overall, only the best from the diminished pool who are playing. It isn’t as if America has suddenly lost the ability to turn out a Dempsey, a Greb, a Louis, a Leonard. The best boxing talent is now doing something other than boxing. Much easier to find and develop elite talent when you’re able to cast an expansive net and winnow through the catch, because singular, elite talent can come from anywhere. Cassius Clay was a middle class kid, you think he gets anywhere near a boxing ring in 2018? Your best chance at discovering the elite talent is to have the largest possible group engaged in the pastime. That should go for baseball and for boxing.

This does not apply to Foster. In his 52 homer season (1977, his age 28 year), his OPS+ was 165. For the 7 years 1975-81, his OPS+ was 149. He was definitely a late bloomer, as 1975 (age 26) was only the 2nd time he had enough PA to qualify for the rate stat leaderboards, but his 1977 was simply the best year of a good peak, not a total anomaly.

Fair enough. I'm extrapolating from an argument I was having with an acquaintance who thinks that Foster, Rose, Morgan, and possibly Bench and Perez were all juicing for one statistical reason or another. It is a ludicrous argument that moves the goalposts so often you can barely find them. My point is basically that any of them could very well have used steroids at some point but seeing as how 4 out of 5 of them are hall of famers you would probably have heard at least a rumor of some wrongdoing at some point.

Which lead to...

I had thought Rose's friendship with a steroid dealer came late in his career, when he was player-manager of the Reds, and not during the BRM days of the early to mid 70s. Was I wrong to think that?

No I don't think you were, but I didn't even know about THAT until someone on this thread told me. Is it fire? No, but there's a little smoke at least which is more than you can say about any of the other guys.